Vikings Message Board.Com

CalVike wrote:A solid B-. A+ if Patterson pans out.

I agree.
I guess the days of building a dream team thru free agency is gone. never ever panned out for daniel snyders redskins, raiders, cowboys, or the eagles last year.

Mothman wrote: No it won't.

The Vikes have already made two other picks and they could make as many as 8 in total if they don't get involved in further trades. Their 2013 draft will be defined by what they achieve with the draft as a whole, not by the trade for Patterson.

From the Bleacher Report:

Ultimately, the success of the Minnesota Vikings' 2013 draft class will be judged on the performance of Cordarrelle Patterson, the mercurial receiver out of Tennessee that the Vikings traded four picks to New England to in order to get.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1623 ... ####/page/4

Perhaps rather than "value" I should have said "Spielman's performance", but the idea is that the other two first round picks were no-brainers, based on BPA and need. And the rest of the guys are low round picks with little chance to succeed. Patterson is the player that defines whether the Vikings organization drafted well given their positions in the draft, or did not.

MrPurplenGold wrote: All in all I think the Vikings as a team are better after the draft than they were before, which makes it a success in my book.

Man, you're an easy grader! They pretty much could not fail your course.

I think the Vikings FO did a nice job once again this year. I like that they have a clear picture of what they want and they go after it, trading up when they feel that it's worth it. Patterson seems like a smart pick to me. I think the clamoring for a guy like Hopkins on this board failed to consider the fact that Musgrave is not going to suddenly change the overall flavor of this offense; he likes the short pass, high completion percentage game and Patterson will be able to fill the role that Percy vacated. I never quite understood why there were so many complaints here on this philosophy, especially when it was working so well.

The Sheriff will enforce the law up the middle and allow our DEs to do more.

Rhodes is an instant help in our now formidable secondary, allowing us to get more aggressive and pressure the big, physical WRs of the NFCN.

The later picks are not likely to have too huge of an impact. I think they have a plan for MLB; either a free agent or moving Erin over. The punter might help.

John_Viveiros wrote:From the Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1623 ... ####/page/4

Perhaps rather than "value" I should have said "Spielman's performance", but the idea is that the other two first round picks were no-brainers, based on BPA and need. And the rest of the guys are low round picks with little chance to succeed. Patterson is the player that defines whether the Vikings organization drafted well given their positions in the draft, or did not.

The other two first round picks weren't no-brainers, they were choices and there were plenty of other options on the table, including every WR other than Austin and every inside LB in the draft, any of whom would have also addressed a need. BPA is completely subjective and not always a key consideration, which is probably one of the reasons Floyd was available to the Vikings in the first place.

The idea that the Patterson pick somehow defines whether the Vikings drafted well is nothing more than a hyperbolic concoction whipped up by those who want to place more emphasis on the pick than it deserves. As I said before, the Vikings 2013 draft will be defined by what they achieve with the draft as a whole, not by the trade for Patterson. That's the logical, sensible way to look at any draft class. Suppose Patterson is a complete bust but Floyd and Rhodes become excellent players, Locke is the Vikings punter for the next 10 years and ranks among the 10 best at his position in the league for most of that time, and one of the other mid-to-late round picks ends up being a solid starter for the team for 3-4 years. That's certainly not an impossible scenario and if things played out that way, would the 2013 draft somehow be defined by the success for failure of Patterson alone? Of course not! The Vikings drafted nine players in this draft so trying to make it about one is just a way to bemoan the price paid for Patterson.

Mothman wrote: The other two first round picks weren't no-brainers, they were choices and there were plenty of other options on the table, including every WR other than Austin and every inside LB in the draft, any of whom would have also addressed a need. BPA is completely subjective and not always a key consideration, which is probably one of the reasons Floyd was available to the Vikings in the first place.

The idea that the Patterson pick somehow defines whether the Vikings drafted well is nothing more than a hyperbolic concoction whipped up by those who want to place more emphasis on the pick than it deserves. As I said before, the Vikings 2013 draft will be defined by what they achieve with the draft as a whole, not by the trade for Patterson. That's the logical, sensible way to look at any draft class. Suppose Patterson is a complete bust but Floyd and Rhodes become excellent players, Locke is the Vikings punter for the next 10 years and ranks among the 10 best at his position in the league for most of that time, and one of the other mid-to-late round picks ends up being a solid starter for the team for 3-4 years. That's certainly not an impossible scenario and if things played out that way, would the 2013 draft somehow be defined by the success for failure of Patterson alone? Of course not! The Vikings drafted nine players in this draft so trying to make it about one is just a way to bemoan the price paid for Patterson.

Well said!

Mothman wrote:The idea that the Patterson pick somehow defines whether the Vikings drafted well is nothing more than a hyperbolic concoction whipped up by those who want to place more emphasis on the pick than it deserves. As I said before, the Vikings 2013 draft will be defined by what they achieve with the draft as a whole, not by the trade for Patterson. That's the logical, sensible way to look at any draft class. Suppose Patterson is a complete bust but Floyd and Rhodes become excellent players, Locke is the Vikings punter for the next 10 years and ranks among the 10 best at his position in the league for most of that time, and one of the other mid-to-late round picks ends up being a solid starter for the team for 3-4 years. That's certainly not an impossible scenario and if things played out that way, would the 2013 draft somehow be defined by the success for failure of Patterson alone? Of course not! The Vikings drafted nine players in this draft so trying to make it about one is just a way to bemoan the price paid for Patterson.

Absolutely correct!

Bucky Brooks absolutely loved our draft.


http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap10000 ... th-promise

I agree with everything said. I cannot wait to see what our team will look like.

Bleacher report articles are nothing to get into a tizzy about, but yes...I side with Moth.

PacificNorseWest wrote:Bleacher report articles are nothing to get into a tizzy about, but yes...I side with Moth.

Bleacher Report articles are definitely nothing to get into a tizzy about.

I'm amazed at the degree of hand-wringing we saw over this trade up to get Patterson and the continued talk of how they overpaid or paid a steep price. In the end, when the draft was over, their net loss on the deal to exchange their second round pick and move up 23 spots to NE's position near the end of the first round was a third round pick and a fourth round pick... and the Vikings still got to pick in the fourth round! That's not a huge price to pay for the opportunity to draft a player with potentially game-changing talent. Only time will tell if the move pays off but the trade illustrates the wisdom of accumulating extra picks and the flexibility that gives a team. When a team can make a deal like this and still come out of a 7 round draft with 9 players and three first rounders, I'd say it's indicative of good management.

2 (46) Adrian Klemm OT Hawaii
3 (76) J.R. Redmond RB Arizona
4 (127) Greg Robinson-Randall OT Michigan State
5 (141) Dave Stachelski TE Boise State
5 (161) Jeff Marriott DT Missouri
6 (188) Antwan Harris DB Virginia
6 (199) Tom Brady QB Michigan
6 (201) David Nugent DT Purdue
7 (226) Casey Tisdale DE New Mexico
7 (239) Patrick Pass RB Georgia



That was the 2000 draft class for the Patriots. Of them only Greg Robinson played more than three years and most weren't with the organization after two years, most were out of FOOTBALL after two years. Would anyone call that daft class a failure though? Look at number 199 there. To think that a draft class is defined by an early round choice is silly. Yes its possible, heck, more than likely that CP will be some kind of bust but that will not define this draft class. To take Moths example even further, what if EVERYONE but locke is a bust in this draft but he goes on to be one of the BEST punters of all time, a coffin corner machine, this draft will have been a resounding success IMO. One player can MAKE a draft, but one single player CANNOT break a draft.

As a sort of "final thought" on this year's draft : I am really glad that the Vikings did not FORCE their picks. By that, I mean that their need for a MLB did not trump what was happening with the draft board and the serious talent that somehow slipped down to them. Part of this is simply setting up their overall big board based more on player talent than the team's need. The more I reflect on it, the happier I am that they traded back into the 1st for Patterson.

Texas Vike wrote:As a sort of "final thought" on this year's draft : I am really glad that the Vikings did not FORCE their picks. By that, I mean that their need for a MLB did not trump what was happening with the draft board and the serious talent that somehow slipped down to them. Part of this is simply setting up their overall big board based more on player talent than the team's need. The more I reflect on it, the happier I am that they traded back into the 1st for Patterson.

I certainly agree

The draft is interesting to say the least. To the topic of the thread, I like how things have gone from the perspective of the event is a week old, but let’s face reality, we won’t be able to judge this draft until 2015 at the earliest.

That being said, there are a lot of ways to look at a draft. If you look at our starters, some 75%+ are 1st or 2nd round draft picks. That would say that any talent you can get out of the 3rd round and beyond should be considered a fortunate event. You have to expect most of those guys are not going to make the team. It also speaks to why missing on a 1st or 2nd round pick is a big deal.

Or maybe you look at through a lens of the total roster, and say that the key to being a consistently winning franchise is to hit on those late round picks so that overall your roster is highly productive. Another consideration is the salary cap, ie if you overload on stars you cannot pay them all and then they leave or take up so much cap space that you have gaping holes on your roster. The draft is in reality a multi-faceted game in the NFL and each aspect has its own set of consequences.

IMO, the real lynch pin are the scouts and player eval guys. If you can consistently find difference making talent in the early rounds that fits schematically, plus role playing talent in the later rounds then you should, in theory have a strong overall roster with which to compete. Thus far, I think it is safe to say Scott Studwell and co have really done a solid job over the past few years.

mansquatch wrote:The draft is interesting to say the least. To the topic of the thread, I like how things have gone from the perspective of the event is a week old, but let’s face reality, we won’t be able to judge this draft until 2015 at the earliest.

That being said, there are a lot of ways to look at a draft. If you look at our starters, some 75%+ are 1st or 2nd round draft picks. That would say that any talent you can get out of the 3rd round and beyond should be considered a fortunate event. You have to expect most of those guys are not going to make the team. It also speaks to why missing on a 1st or 2nd round pick is a big deal.

Or maybe you look at through a lens of the total roster, and say that the key to being a consistently winning franchise is to hit on those late round picks so that overall your roster is highly productive. Another consideration is the salary cap, ie if you overload on stars you cannot pay them all and then they leave or take up so much cap space that you have gaping holes on your roster. The draft is in reality a multi-faceted game in the NFL and each aspect has its own set of consequences.

IMO, the real lynch pin are the scouts and player eval guys. If you can consistently find difference making talent in the early rounds that fits schematically, plus role playing talent in the later rounds then you should, in theory have a strong overall roster with which to compete. Thus far, I think it is safe to say Scott Studwell and co have really done a solid job over the past few years.

Nice take.

I find it interesting, in light of your observations about the draft as a multi-faceted game, that we made our big trade with the Pats, a team that has typically taken a very different approach to the draft. Whereas the Vikes have made 5 first round selections in the past two years, the Pats tend to look to stockpile later picks and take a "shotgun" approach. Perhaps their success w/ snagging Brady encourages this philosophy.

I personally like the Vikes' approach and I feel like as a franchise we have some very positive momentum going on. I like our coach, our GM, our draft guys... I like that our owners are willing to spend some money (compare the Wilfs to Red McCombs, for example)... to not even mention our players.

If two of the three first round draft picks become Pro Bowlers, this will be an amazingly successful draft. If all three do, it will be legendary. What I expect is for one of them to become a standout player, one of them to become a decent starter, and one of them to bust. Why? Because I am a Vikings fan, and while I am excited for the potential, my excitement is tempered by the fact that I am a Vikings fan.